JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Additional Director of Health Services. Thiruvananthapuram. While he was functioning as the Director of Health Services disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for various charges. The main charge leveled against him is that he has obtained illegal gratification in transferring medical officers during general transfer effected in the year 1998. Certain other charges were also leveled against him. We need not go into all those charges in detail for the disposal of this case. Suffice it to say, on various charges leveled against him proceedings were initiated against him under the Government Servants Conduct Rules. A vigilance enquiry was also ordered by the Government. By order dated 8-7-1996 case was referred to the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. Vigilance Tribunal conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report to the Government. During the enquiry, 61 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution and marked 106 documents. On the side of the petitioner, 7 witnesses were examined and marked 9 documents. During the enquiry PW.30, PW.37 and PW.38 were examined by the prosecution to establish that the accused accepted Rs.2000/- from PW.30 for giving a suitable posting to PW.38, who is the wife or PW.30 who was working as Lady Health Inspector at Primary Health Centre, Thariyode in Wayanad District. As per charge No.1 framed by the Government it was alleged that the petitioner obtained illegal gratification from Medical Officers and also through agents deputed by him. Eventhough the vigilance enquiry report contained the allegation of acceptance of Rs.2000/- from PW.30 as a motive for giving a transfer to PW.38 the charge was not specific and hence on the basis of submission made by the presenting officer, the Vigilance Tribunal invoked Rule 8(3) of the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules and altered the charge and included the charge as an additional charge which reads as follows: THAT YOU, while working as above, abusing your official position as Government servant, accepted illegal gratification of an amount of Rs.2000/- from Sri. M. Prabhakaran, Sunil Nivas, Kallayam in the year 1994 for the transfer of his wife Smt. Sumangi who was working as Health Inspector at Primary Health Centre, Thariyode, Wayanad District to Thiruvananthapuram District. The above action on your part amounts to serious misconduct and grave dereliction of duty whereby you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. M. Prabhakaran, Sunil Nivas, Kallayam in the year 1994 for the transfer of his wife Smt. Sumangi who was working as Health Inspector at Primary Health Centre, Thariyode, Wayanad District to Thiruvananthapuram District. The above action on your part amounts to serious misconduct and grave dereliction of duty whereby you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Copy of the altered memo of charges was served on the petitioner and the Vigilance Tribunal has given opportunity to the petitioner to file additional written statement of defence and also to recall and re-examine any of the prosecution witnesses already examined. Petitioner was also permitted to adduce further evidence, if any, in this connection. In pursuance to the altered memo of charges, the petitioner filed an additional written statement of defence. Eventhough he was allowed to recall and examine any of the prosecution witness concerning additional charge No.4 he did not prefer to do so. Instead, the petitioner filed a list of witnesses to be examined as dedene witnesses and accordingly 7 witnesses were examined and also marked 4 other documents. 2. Vigilance Tribunal on a consideration of the entire evidence adduced by both sides, found the petitioner guilty of charge No.2, 3 and additional charge No.4. Tribunal recommended to award the penalty of reduction in rank to the immediate lower post for a period of 3 years. Tribunal then submitted report to the Government on 20-8-1997. Government examined the repost of the Vigilance Tribunal in detail and provisionally decided to accept the findings and recommendations of the Vigilance Tribunal. Accordingly show cause notice was served on the petitioner calling upon him to submit explanation, if any, regarding the provisional decision of the Government as per notice dated 30-9-1997. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 5-11-1997. Government considered the explanation and consulted the Public Service Commission and decided to impose the penalty of reduction in rank to the immediate lower post for three years as per Order dated 25-11-1998. Aggrieved by those orders the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. Learned single Judge did not grant the relief prayed for and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. When the matter came up for hearing we heard counsel for the appellant Sri. N. Sukumaran as well as learned Government Pleader Sri. C.K. Pavithran. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. Learned single Judge did not grant the relief prayed for and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. When the matter came up for hearing we heard counsel for the appellant Sri. N. Sukumaran as well as learned Government Pleader Sri. C.K. Pavithran. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. Sukumaran submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in altering the memo of charges when evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. Counsel submitted the expression during the course of inquiry appears in Rule 8(3) of the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960 would indicate that before starting of evidence, Learned Government Pleader on the other hand, submitted the words during the course of inquiry means from the date when charge sheet is issued and enquiry officer is appointed till the culmination of the enquiry, that is, till orders are passed. 4. In order to resolve the controversy it is necessary to examine the scope of R.8 (3) of the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960 which is extracted below for easy reference: 8(3). The Tribunal may, during the course of the inquiry if it deem necessary, and to, amend, alter or modify the charges framed against the accused Government servant; in which case the accused shall be required to submit within a reasonable time to be specified in that behalf any further written statement of his defence. We are of the view Rule 8(3) confers considerable amount of discretion on the Tribunal. The expressions may if it deems necessary etc. used in the said rule would show that the Tribunal has got the discretion to add, amend, alter or modify the charges framed against the accused during the course of inquiry, if it deems necessary. Sufficient safeguard is provided in Rule 8(3) itself. The Tribunal should give a reasonable time to the accused to submit his further written statement of defence. 5. We are of the view alteration or addition or amending of the charge is merely a matter of procedure and so long as ample notice of such alteration or addition or amendment is given and adequate opportunities for defence are afforded to the delinquent officer, there will be no violation of the rules of equity or natural justice even if the charge is altered or added or amended by the Tribunal. 6. 6. We may in this connection refer to the decision of the Orissa High Court in Braja Kishore Das v. State of Orissa, AIR 1965 Ori.183 where in the Orissa High Court was dealing with Rules 5 and 7 Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951. While examining the scope of the rules the court held as follows: Rules 5 and 7 of the Tribunal Rules confers very wide jurisdiction on the Tribunal as regards the procedure to be followed during the enquiry, subject of course to the over-riding consideration that rules of equity should be strictly observed. Alteration or addition or amending of a charge is merely a matter of procedure and so long as ample notice of such alteration or addition or amendment is given and adequate opportunities for defence are afforded to the delinquent officer, there will be no violation of the rules of equity even if the charge is altered of added or amended by the Tribunal. Even in regular criminal proceedings involving the liberty of the subject Sec.227 of the Criminal Procedure Code authorizes the court holding the enquiry to amend or alter the charge at any stage, subject of course to certain safeguards. In our opinion therefore the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in including an additional charge before the conclusion of the departmental enquiry. We are of the view the above mentioned principle laid down by the Orissa High Court is squarely applicable in the instant case as well. As we have already indicated the provision under Rule 8(3) has conferred considerable amount of discretion on the Tribunal to add or amend or alter or modify the charges during the course of inquiry if it deems necessary. In the instant case after adding the charges petitioner was given ample opportunity to file written statement. Opportunity was also given for recalling witnesses and adducing evidence. Petitioner participated in the inquiry without any demur. We may also notice petitioner has never raised any objection before the Tribunal about its power to add the additional charges. Even before the Government petitioner had no case that the Tribunal has no power to add any additional charge and that it has wrongly exercised the power under Rule 8(3) of the Rules. 7. We are therefore of the view petitioner is not justified in contending that Tribunal has no power to add additional charges. Even before the Government petitioner had no case that the Tribunal has no power to add any additional charge and that it has wrongly exercised the power under Rule 8(3) of the Rules. 7. We are therefore of the view petitioner is not justified in contending that Tribunal has no power to add additional charges. We also additional charges during the course of enquiry. The enquiry would be completed only when it passes the final orders. Before passing final orders it is always open to the Tribunal if it deems necessary to add or amend or alter the charges since it is a matter of procedure only, the Tribunal however, has to give ample opportunity to the delinquent officer to meet the charges. Under such circumstance we find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal. Writ Appeal therefore lacks merits and the same is dismissed.